What does it mean to be a liberal (politically)?

[vorlon13]

Just throwing this out, I might disavow it later:


Liberals comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable

Conservatives afflict the afflicted and comfort the comfortable

[Ryantology]

To be a conservative means that you are greedy, you are stupid, you find joy in the suffering of others and wish to make it worse, or some combination of those three things.

To be a liberal means to have a conscience and awareness that other human beings have value.

[Thumpalumpacus]

To be a conservative means that you are greedy, you are stupid, you find joy in the suffering of others and wish to make it worse, or some combination of those three things.

To be a liberal means to have a conscience and awareness that other human beings have value.

Well, that's an unbiased reading of affairs.

How old are you?

[Whateverist]

Shooting from the hip .. I'd have to say being a liberal means you don't automatically vote to maintain the status quo. You probably also don't take your marching orders from Rush Limbaugh. You may not be a bigot,racist or homophobe. (Of course, if you were a conservative you almost certainly would be all of those things.)

Let's see .. you probably have a pretty fair appraisal of what is in your best interests. (Hint: you are no where near part of the 1% and even winning the lotto won't change that.) As a liberal you are likely to think of government as a tool for the general betterment of all citizens. You probably have a hard time keeping your thinking in any boxes. And you definitely do not recognize the personhood of corporations.

[Pizza]

I lean democrat on most issues and lean more left of American center left on foreign policy issues.

[Dystopia]

To be a conservative means that you are greedy, you are stupid, you find joy in the suffering of others and wish to make it worse, or some combination of those three things.

To be a liberal means to have a conscience and awareness that other human beings have value.

That's true for some conservatives but let's keep to acceptable definitions. You probably wouldn't like it if I said liberals are anti-religion cultural marxist anti-white anti-men bigots - Because it wouldn't be true.

This isn't really about Liberals V conservatives but rather on what means to be a liberal and particularly why do some labels fit liberals.

---

Shooting from the hip .. I'd have to say being a liberal means you don't automatically vote to maintain the status quo. You probably also don't take your marching orders from Rush Limbaugh. You may not be a bigot,racist or homophobe. (Of course, if you were a conservative you almost certainly would be all of those things.)

This isn't really a discussion about what parties do, it's a conceptual ideological discussion of what it means to be a liberal politically in any society.

- as a liberal I could keep the status quo if it was correct and just
- I know conservatives who are not any of those things - Additionally I've met black conservatives, gay conservatives, etc. But conservatism isn't necessarily the same as in America

Let's see .. you probably have a pretty fair appraisal of what is in your best interests. (Hint: you are no where near part of the 1% and even winning the lotto won't change that.) As a liberal you are likely to think of government as a tool for the general betterment of all citizens. You probably have a hard time keeping your thinking in any boxes. And you definitely do not recognize the personhood of corporations.

A useful tool, but the ideal society is still the one with less government - Less government is an end, not a means

I recognize the personhood of corporations, companies, associations and other collective groups of people, that's pretty standard to me - In my country every corporation is entitled to legal personhood, but it certainly isn't the same as human being's personhood.

---

Seems to me that here in America, classic liberalism has been split up between the Republicans and the Democrats: the Republicans cotton to economic liberalism, while the Democrats cotton to social liberalism.

I was a registered Libertarian for years, and still have strong leanings that way. My sense is that government is clearly necessary, clearly a concentration of power susceptible to corruption and clearly an institution that, while necessary, is not trustworthy.

I reject the current usage of "liberal" as a pejorative, just as I reject "Republicunt", because both those labels strive to demonize dissentients.

So what is a "liberal"? He is an dying species bridging the gap between feudalism and the technocratic dictatorship we're installing. We're a dying breed.

I don't think we are dying, I think atheists are an example of people who will be more likely to be liberal in the future. Of course there are atheist conservatives and often communists/socialists, but there's also many liberals since it's a more moderate position compared to communism and socialism.

I think the difference between a libertarian and a liberal is that the liberal is more moderate when it comes to public authority and state intervention, while still keeping the values of freedom, property and life. Additionally there's many variations of libertarianism (example - socialist libertarianism) or hardcore government abolishing libertarianism mixed with anarchism.

These labels also change with time, the liberals of today can be the conservatives of tomorrow, it's something that has been happening forever.

[FatAndFaithless]

I'm so sprawling across the spectrum in terms of my political beliefs that I just get exhausted with qualifiers whenever I try to use one of the larger labels. I like to speak on an issue-by-issue basis, which makes political discussion a bit slower for me. I suppose I'd just fall under the nearly-useless term "independent", or more accurately "a nut".

[Mister Agenda]

This is a pretty fair question. There's so many definitions people have of what a liberal is supposed to be that it becomes complicated to define liberalism.

Originally, liberalism is a political ideology that emphasizes personal individual liberties and autonomy - Core values are liberty, life and property.

Sure, we call that 'Classic Liberalism' these days. A lot of people who describe themselves as 'small-l' libertarian-leaning are this.

Liberalism is necessarily capitalist since the free market is the only institution compatible with individual rights and it's maximization - However this doesn't mean advocating ultra-capitalism and unregulated markets. Indeed, a wise liberal probably thinks that idealistically the best state is the one that governs less, but public intervention is a necessity. In fact, since many individuals and groups of people can be disadvantaged compared to others, it's necessary to support public intervention and social justice to allow those people to fully exercise their individual rights as well. In my opinion, at least, being a liberal is compatible with moderate, wise state intervention, but it cannot be dissociated from capitalism as an economic system and it's core principles. A liberal who is anti-capitalist is not a liberal, but probably a social-democrat or a socialist.

I think the term 'socialist' is usually misused. Social programs are not socialism or socialistic. The state owning the means of production is socialistic.

Liberals V. Conservatives:
When looking at American politics it's curious that conservatives seem more "liberal" when it comes to economics and state intervention than American liberals - In my opinion, the core differences are that liberals are socially liberal (gay marriage, abortion, drug legalization, etc.) and liberals end up being the ones advocating higher economic freedom - Conservatives want to make the rich richer and the poor poorer, support the death penalty (individual right to one's own life), support invading people's privacy, etc... If liberals really do support higher state intervention for the common good, it ends up being a means to reach the end - The end is equity in the sense that all people, within limitations, have equal opportunities (not results). In Europe the word liberal doesn't get thrown much, though it's correlated with center right social democrats that favour capitalism, but it doesn't mean much by itself, it just means that someone is "liberal" and has a connotation with social tolerance and being pro social equality.

I can agree with that, broadly. I'd say the GOP has become the party of borrow and spend, which is worse than tax and spend IMHO, and goes against their supposed core principles. I'd say that most rank-and-file conservatives don't want to 'make the rich, richer and the poor, poorer'. They mostly honestly believe that their economic policies will benefit the poor more in the long run, and if they're failing to do so, it's because they're not being implemented properly. For the most part (with notable exceptions), they're not evil, just wrong.

Liberals V. Libertarians - From what I have noticed the core difference is that libertarians are more averse to State intervention and support a much larger scale of the non aggression principle, leading individuals to maximize their individual rights to the point the state can either be privatized or is almost useless. Libertarians are also, apparently, more averse to regulating the free market, as opposed to liberals.

A fair cop, except the silent majority of libertarians are more moderate in how much they would decrease government. Technically, anarcho-capitalists are more 'fellow travellers' than actual libertarians since libertarianism by defintion does not have eliminating government entirely as a goal, but they tend to appropriate the libertarian label and rant a lot on the internet. A lot of actual libertarian literature is more about decreasing government waste, reducing military spending, and protecting privacy and autonomy. The Libertarian Party's last presidential candidate, Gary Johnson, is a good example of 'mainstream libertarianism'.

Liberals V. Socialists:
I've noticed both support state intervention and social justice, but the noticeable difference is that socialists are anti-capitalists by nature, even though they want to bring it down trough a democratic procedure (if you don't think this is true, then you need to inform yourself - You can't be a socialist and a capitalist - If you support both, you are a social democrat)

Again, agreed with the caveat that socialism and social programs are entirely separate things.

Liberals V. Social democrats:
Social Democrats have affinities with socialism but support the coexistence of socialistic and social measures with capitalism. They support keeping the free market under regulation and favour strong social justice. The difference I think is that social democrats place much higher expectations on social equity and satisfying community as a whole, the common good, whereas liberals prefer individual rights and freedoms. Northern European states are examples of social democracy with some mix of liberalism.


The word liberal nowadays can mean anything from someone who favours both economic and social liberties (with moderation on the former) as well as be used as a pejorative insult against "progressives".

So am I wrong? And what is a liberal?

More important - Does a liberal need to left-wing?

[Dystopia]

Sure, we call that 'Classic Liberalism' these days. A lot of people who describe themselves as 'small-l' libertarian-leaning are this.

I'd describe myself as probably a classic liberal, even though I have independent thinking. I don't classify myself as a libertarian because I see some use in state intervention and public allocation of some key resources and economic sectors. But generally, individual rights are more important - What matters is not the common good but the individual itself, the individual is not a mean, it is an end - Liberalism means freedom is always an end in itself, it is the climax of human satisfaction and happiness, not a mean to reach some other goal

I think the term 'socialist' is usually misused. Social programs are not socialism or socialistic. The state owning the means of production is socialistic.

Yes, and to be socialist you'd need to abolish capitalism and implement a different system - Granted that socialists are not like communists (noticeably they are less anti-religion and still favour some meritocracy) they are still anti-capitalist and pro working class. Such programs are social democracy.

I can agree with that, broadly. I'd say the GOP has become the party of borrow and spend, which is worse than tax and spend IMHO, and goes against their supposed core principles. I'd say that most rank-and-file conservatives don't want to 'make the rich, richer and the poor, poorer'. They mostly honestly believe that their economic policies will benefit the poor more in the long run, and if they're failing to do so, it's because they're not being implemented properly. For the most part (with notable exceptions), they're not evil, just wrong.

From what I've seen they're not that much in favour of personal rights, specially when they are ready to give up freedom in the name of security (NSA controversies, military interventions and militarism, less social freedom and less freedom from religion) - In many ways they seem to support less individual rights if we exclude economics

A fair cop, except the silent majority of libertarians are more moderate in how much they would decrease government. Technically, anarcho-capitalists are more 'fellow travellers' than actual libertarians since libertarianism by defintion does not have eliminating government entirely as a goal, but they tend to appropriate the libertarian label and rant a lot on the internet. A lot of actual libertarian literature is more about decreasing government waste, reducing military spending, and protecting privacy and autonomy. The Libertarian Party's last presidential candidate, Gary Johnson, is a good example of 'mainstream libertarianism'.

Yeah I know that.

[Ryantology]

Well, that's an unbiased reading of affairs.

How old are you?

A large part of why this country is so fucked up is because a significant portion of our voting population ceased to mature emotionally after the age of four, and an unwillingness on the part of more reasonable people to appear 'biased' conveys upon these people, and their opinions undeserved respect and gravitas, enough that they have the ability to make life completely and unnecessarily miserable for millions of people, always for reasons that never boil down to anything but spite or greed.

So, yeah, I'm biased. I have nothing but contempt for conservatives. And being biased and uncharitable doesn't make me wrong.

That's true for some conservatives but let's keep to acceptable definitions. You probably wouldn't like it if I said liberals are anti-religion cultural marxist anti-white anti-men bigots - Because it wouldn't be true.

This isn't really about Liberals V conservatives but rather on what means to be a liberal and particularly why do some labels fit liberals.

My response reflects what it means, to me, to be a liberal. If I were to keep to 'acceptable definitions', I would have to lie in my answer.